MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU PAL OORPATHIYALUR KOOTURAVU INAIYAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed to quash the Award of the first Respondent Tribunal dated September 13, 2004 passed in I.D. No. 23/2001.

(2.) The brief facts which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows:

(3.) While according to the second Respondent Sangam, Rajasekaran covered under the award in I.D. No. 70/1986 is one P. Rajasekaran, according to the Petitioner management, P. Rajasekaran was no longer in service and was terminated much before the date of illegal strike and the employees participated in the strike were attached to Central Dairy, Madharvam, one among whom is A. Rajasekaran and the re-employment of A Rajasekaran is in compliance with the award Both the parties to the Industrial Dispute have adduced oral and documentary evidence before the first Respondent Tribunal. While on the side of the workmen Sangam who is the second Respondent herein, P. Rajasekaran and another employee in the Superintendent Cadre were examined as W.W. 1 and W.W. 2 and 8 documents were marked as Exhibits W-1 to W-8, on the side of the Management, A. Rajasekaran and one P. Dharmaraj were examined as M.W. 1 and M.W. 2 and 18 documents were marked as Exhibits M-1 to M-18. The first Respondent Tribunal has on the basis of the available records arrived at a conclusion that the burden is upon the management to prove the termination of P. Rajasekaran in the month of September 1980 and non-production of termination order or any other document relating to the management and the documents produced on the side of the management are not sufficient and adequate enough to prove that A. Rajasekaran was in service prior to strike and as A. Rajasekaran is admittedly not the member of the second Respondent union, the name Rajasekaran mentioned in the award refers to only P. Rajasekaran and it is P. Rajasekaran who ought to have been deemed to be in service on November 19, 1980 and the Tribunal has accordingly passed the award. Aggrieved against the same, the Management has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief as stated supra.